Senate Vote Gives Push to Ban on ‘Soft Money’

The Senate on Tuesday decisively rejected an amendment that would have capped but not ended the unlimited donations to political parties known as “soft money.”

Both sides called the vote the most significant victory yet for those who say banning such contributions is needed to clean up a political system too heavily influenced by big donors.

These reform advocates, led by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), cautioned that major obstacles remain to approval of legislation that can survive the Senate, the House, the White House and court challenges. Still, McCain and Feingold basked in their show of strength in the 60-40 vote that blocked the alternative that they claimed was loophole-ridden.

Even the leading opponent of the McCain-Feingold bill conceded that the Senate was making a larger statement when it turned back the measure sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) to cap soft-money donations to national parties.

“If any bill leaves the Senate, it’s not going to have a penny of soft money in it,” said Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), another foe of the McCain-Feingold legislation, agreed it was clear the Senate wouldn’t be satisfied with a cap on soft money. But he stopped short of predicting what action the chamber ultimately would take as the debate heads toward a final vote.

The Hagel plan, which McConnell and Lott backed, had White House encouragement if not a formal endorsement. Hagel was seeking to cap soft-money donations to national parties at $60,000 a year. The cap would not have applied to state parties, an omission McCain and Feingold called a fatal flaw.

Elated at the rejection of the rival plan, McCain and Feingold said that, although their coalition faces further tests, the road had effectively been cleared for their centerpiece proposal.

“This was a vote that got rid of soft money,” Feingold said. “Now we have to hold it.”

Joining McCain and Feingold in voting against the Hagel measure were some Republicans not previously known as their allies. Among them were Sens. Ted Stevens of Alaska and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana. “I’m against soft money,” Stevens said.

All told, 12 Republicans voted against the Hagel plan. They were joined by 48 Democrats, including Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein of California. The two Democrats siding with Hagel were Sens. John B. Breaux of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

A Key Setback for GOP Leaders

The growing support for a soft-money ban represents a significant blow to the Senate GOP leadership and a departure from campaign reform principles laid down by President Bush.

The White House has said Bush supports a ban on unlimited donations by corporations and labor unions. But the Bush proposal would not curtail soft-money donations by wealthy individuals.

Nonetheless, Bush has not publicly threatened to veto the McCain-Feingold bill. Hagel, who has discussed campaign reform with the president, said Tuesday that he still believes Bush wants to sign a bill.

The spotlight in the Senate debate now falls on Democrats who have formed the core of the McCain-Feingold coalition. If the bill is to win final passage by week’s end--the hope of its sponsors--its support will have to come from virtually all the Senate’s Democrats and a handful of centrist Republicans.

Two looming issues could yet fracture the coalition: whether to raise existing limits on campaign contributions made directly to candidates for federal office (known as hard money) and whether to allow some parts of the bill to survive if others are found unconstitutional.

Democrats appeared to be moving toward some agreement on both issues, but the situation was so fluid that backers of the McCain-Feingold bill were still crafting strategy on these issues Tuesday night.

Emerging from a midday meeting with Senate Democrats, Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota acknowledged he’s not sure he has the votes to fend off an amendment that would require that much or all of any reform bill that became law be tossed out if even a tiny component is overturned by courts. Such a proposal is backed by Bush and many Senate Republicans, some of whom see it as their ace in the hole for scuttling the reform push.

“We’re not there yet,” Daschle said. “There are a number of our colleagues who feel very strongly” that the entire bill should stand or fall with every legal challenge that its various pieces face.

The issue has emerged as one of the most important yet to be resolved, particularly after the Senate’s approval of some amendments thought to be vulnerable to a constitutional challenge under the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.

One such amendment, approved in a close vote Monday night, would ban such interest groups as the National Rifle Assn. and the Sierra Club from funding “issue” ads that essentially endorse or attack a candidate in the weeks before an election.

Democrats who remain undecided about amending the bill to effectively void it if parts are found unconstitutional include Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois. Durbin says he supports the McCain-Feingold bill but frets that the legislation could be perverted by unpredictable court rulings.

“If the Supreme Court is allowed to pick and choose its favorite sections, we could end up with something not balanced,” Durbin said.

Democrats appeared to be having greater success moving toward an accord on raising limits on the direct contributions to candidates. Currently, individual donors may give no more than $2,000 to any candidate in a typical campaign cycle--$1,000 for a primary race and $1,000 for the general election. That limit has been in place since 1974.

In addition, the total of such contributions by a single donor cannot surpass $50,000 to candidates and parties per campaign cycle.

McCain, Feingold See Caps Easing

Despite complaints by senators from both parties that the limits have not kept pace with inflation, McCain and Feingold have resisted significant changes. But both sponsors have indicated that easing the caps is inevitable.

Tuesday night, Sens. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.), Don Nickles (R-Okla.) and Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.) proposed an amendment to raise the individual donation limit to $5,000 per candidate ($2,500 for the primary, $2,500 for the general election) and a total of $100,000 per cycle.

A vote on that proposal is scheduled today.

In addition, Feinstein has been working on a compromise that would raise the limits to $4,000 per candidate ($2,000 for the primary, $2,000 for the general election) and to a total per cycle of $65,000.

Daschle endorsed Feinstein’s plan on Tuesday. But the party leader, like many Democrats, did so only reluctantly. Democrats in recent years have been able to match Republicans in raising soft money, but lag in hard money.

Democrats Outpaced in ‘Hard Money’ Battle

In the 1999-2000 cycle, for instance, Democrats raised about $270 million in hard money. Republicans, led by Bush, raised $447 million.

What’s more, Daschle said, Republicans tend to attract wealthier donors who more frequently bump up against contribution caps.

In last year’s presidential race, Daschle said, Bush had 100,000 donors who gave the maximum amount, while Democratic candidate Al Gore had 40,000.

“Genetically, more Republicans are rich than Democrats,” Daschle joked.

Given this fund-raising discrepancy between the parties, the Democrats who back Feinstein say they are making a costly concession.

But it was clear Tuesday that many senators are ready to raise the hard-money limits.

A proposal by Hagel to triple the limits narrowly failed, 52 to 47. Senators said that other proposals for somewhat smaller increases to the contribution limits were likely to generate majority support.

“We must raise the hard-money cap,” Lott said.

The Senate also adopted, by voice vote, an amendment sponsored by Hagel to impose more disclosure requirements on groups other than candidates and parties that place political advertisements on television and the radio.